Couldn’t get the main theme until I worked out the last letter of 24A. Had vaguely heard of the Hollywood person (having got her first name in 4D), so it all fitted and (almost) everything fell into place. Now I have all but 5D. I’m assuming the homophone part of the clue refers to the first part, not the last.

RB:
I had marked 1A as a fail for exactly the same reason, but then realized that it is an &lit (note question mark at the end). Only just good enough on that score, too, but I now give it a bare pass.

Dave R: Your assumption is right. Hard to give you a further clue without giving it away. This was among my last words too, and it’s hard to see why now that I have it.

Just one complaint: I felt (as someone did in the other thread) that 15A was too laboured. Very clever when you have the solution; but to me, wordplay should be capable of contributing to the solution of the clue. With 15A, as occasionally with DA clues, the ONLY hope you have of getting the answer is from the definition, and then you work back to find the wordplay. (I am willing to be contradicted if anyone tells me they got there by seeing MATE, thinking of COPULATE*, removing the COP and adding the AD.)

One wordplay query: explanation of 10A, please. I see the “I” and then stop.

AG, re 1A, you may be right that DA intended it as &lit, but here are two factors militating against that theory. To qualify as &lit or even partial &lit, all or most of the clue has to constitute the definition, and this clue doesn’t quite work that way IMO. The words “treat” and non-wary” don’t seem relevant to the definition. The other factor is that DA usually marks his &lits with a “!”, not a “?” (although I concede that he went against this convention three weeks ago with CRAIC).

OK, I can (just about) accept it’s an &lit, and the “?” may well signify untidiness or oblique definition or whatever, but where’s the trailing “!”?

For as long as I’ve been doing DA crosswords, he’s always terminated his &lits with a “!” even if there was also a “?”. As I said above, he missed the “!” three weeks ago with CRAIC, and he seems to have done it again here.

RB, AG, I read “non wary” as part of the anagram, not the definition ie “treat” is the anagram trigger, the anagram consists of “a frenzy awful”, another “a” and then take out “wary”. Perhaps this is obvious and you are talking about something else. I don’t really understand the “&lit” references & would love an explanation. I assumed that a word like disease or condition had been left off the end of the intended clue (due to deadline or oversight or typo). Not sure what I made of the question mark.

JK:
I’ll try to clarify. The wordplay part of the clue is as you describe it: “treat” signifying anagram of (a+frenzy+awful+a-wary). For a normally constructed clue that would mean that “yuppie” remains as the definition part, and that was RB’s original complaint – affluenza is not a yuppie. As you suggest, adding a word such as “condition” (or something a bit less obvious) would make it a correct orthodox clue. Maybe it was a composition error, although that’s rare (not non-existent) for DA.

My alternative suggestion was that perhaps it was a &lit. This is a clue type used occasionally by DA and some other compilers where the *entire* clue is a definition – in this case (to further paraphrase the clue) an awful frenzy in which unwary yuppies can become involved (there’s an allusion here to the synonymous term “yuppie flu”). But that seems to leave hanging the “Treat” at the start; and besides, as RB notes, usually &lits are signified by an exclamation mark.

All in all, the clue just seems to end up kinda rough. As AS said, that’s rare for DA.

And this whole thing doesn’t detract from what was a rattling good crossword.

Just about to post this and I see AG has beaten me to it, but I’ll go ahead anyway.

JK, the way I see it is this:

Like you (and, I think, AG), I originally interpreted the clue as:
wordplay: “Treat a frenzy – awful – involving a non-wary”
definition: “yuppie”

This is an unsatisfactory definition so maybe there’s a word missing (like disease/condition), as you suggest. Or maybe, it’s an &lit clue, as AG suggests.

Wikipedia says &lit stands for “and literally so”, and goes on to say “the entire clue is both a definition and a cryptic clue”. DA himself said in an article a couple of years ago (Meanjin and The Age) that “… wordplay also serves literally as definition. Reliably clued by an exclamation mark”.

Sometimes (all too often) an &lit doesn’t quite fit the above slick description: only part of the clue constitutes the definition and/or wordplay, but there is a marked overlap of wordplay with definition, so some people call it a partial &lit. (Others might object, calling it “double duty”!)

In the particular case of 1A, as I said above, there are two factors militating against &lit status: “treat” and “non-wary” do not seem to be part of the definition (although AG is a bit more lenient – see above), and there is no trailing “!”.

PS A more recent DA &lit than CRAIC three weeks ago (where there was no trailing “!”) was 16D in last week’s puzzle (where there was a trailing “!”).

I almost wish I didn’t find this so interesting & such a distraction from work! I do feel like a DA novice even though we (wife & I) have been doing DA for a couple of years & other cryptics prior to that. Great to have this forum. Thanks.